Why no Nobel Prize for Astronomy?

Actually just to through a pigeon among the cats, so to speak, Astronomy covers and depends on physics, chemistry, biology, geology, quantum mechanics, particle physics etc. Given that all of us and and our surroundings are made of star dust then a Noble prize for for anything is also one for astronomy.

Kieran

Hear, hear! Astronomy requires a balanced knowledge in all areas of science. This is [becoming] more and more apparent, though it wasn't always so. Astronomers and physicists have always played politics, much to each others disadvantage. However, historically physicists have been the ones to breach the divide, and apply their thinking in terms of cosmological consequence. In this age of specialisation its important to check out whats going on in the sandboxes surrounding you, and not to think you are center of the universe.

Actually just to through a pigeon among the cats, so to speak, Astronomy covers and depends on physics, chemistry, biology, geology, quantum mechanics, particle physics etc. Given that all of us and and our surroundings are made of star dust then a Noble prize for for anything is also one for astronomy.

Kieran

That could be a healthy debate for another time! i mean, "true" astronomy dealt with the charting of stars in different cultures for things like navigation, crop harvesting, god worshiping, and even story telling and fortune prediction (becoming astrology, the evil side of the astronomical force!). Later, through the centuries (come the 1500's) and you've got planetary mechanics, more thorough star charts (long-duration navigation), and even just plain simple observing (with the invention of the telescope).

The likes of quantum mechanics, exo/astrobiology, particle physics, and so on, I think still lie in the realm of the three cores of science - physics ("Natural Philosophy"), chemistry, and biology. There is just a natural connection to astronomy in todays world of the last 100-odd years.

Seanie.